Welcome to Haringey Green Party's blog. We will publish news here about Haringey, a borough in north London, and what Haringey Greens are up to, plus some political comment. Please feel free to comment on the topics raised here. If you would like to contact us, please email mike.shaughnessy@btinternet.com

Thursday, 31 May 2012

It seems like nowadays that every person and
every country in the world is in debt. Ever since the financial crisis in 2007-8
which began with the collapse of investment bank Lehman Brothers, world leaders
have been frantically trying to save other private banks and financial
institutions from failing by pumping trillions of dollars onto their balance
sheets and the wider economy. In the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown spent a total
of over £1 trillion, which was the same as 31% of GDP in March 2010. In the
United States of America, the government at the time committed an incredible £9
trillion to support Wall Street (source New York Times). By socialising the losses of the private finance sector,
there are now sovereign debt crisis across Europe, which threatens the
membership of the Euro currency and even the European Union itself.

Which begs the question - why did we have to
spend all this money, which would have been better used on preventing the
looming catastrophes of peak oil and runaway climate change? What makes private
banks so special?

To cut a long story short, we are in this
debt crisis because of our deeply flawed banking and monetary system. In 2012,
private banks create 97% of the money in the economy as debt, whilst the
government only creates 3% in the form of coins and paper money. Until this
system is fixed, we will continue to spiral further and further into a debt
crisis, instead of focusing on fixing the environmental crisis and other
problems facing our country.

In the United Kingdom,
the publicly owned Bank of England has a monopoly on creating coin
and paper money, which it prints each year and circulates into the economy.
This is good news, as the Bank of England, and by extension the Treasury, earns
'seigniorage', the profit difference between the cost of the paper and its
value (i.e. twenty pounds for twenty pound note). In 2008, the profit to the
Treasury from this was £2.33 billion, money which gets spent on public services
or reducing tax.

However, the Bank of
England does not have a monopoly on creating electronic money, which private
banks can legally create every time a customer opens a current account with
them or applies for a mortgage. As Martin Wolf, the chief economics editor at
the Financial Times puts it, 'The essence of the contemporary monetary system
is the creation of money, out of nothing, by private banks’ often foolish
lending.'

This is bad news! Private
banks are owned by private shareholders, and are run for profit. It isn't in
their interests to make sure that money is spent on productive businesses, good
jobs, environmentally friendly projects, etc. It's in their interests to create
as much money as they can and invest it in the most profitable sectors they
can, which tend to be property (hence the housing bubble and subsequent crash)
and environmentally destructive but very lucrative projects such as coal power
plants, oil rigs, the tar sands projects in Canada and other nefarious schemes.
As customers, we have no say over where our savings, or what should be *our*
money supply, is invested.

Luckily, there is a
solution. The monetary reform campaigning group Positive Moneyhave been raising this issue for several years, and have
even drafted legislation which would take the creation of money away from
private banks and put it back under the democratic control of the government.
You can learn more about this issue on their website, as well as on this one
hour documentary called '97% Owned'.

Even better, as you are (hopefully!) a member
of the most democratic political party in England & Wales, you can make it
Green Party policy today to reform this system. I have submitted a motion to
SOC to amend current Green Party policy EC661 to the following motion:

Synopsis:

97% of all money in the UK
is created by banks. Our government prints bank notes and coins, but private
banks create electronic deposit accounts. This state of affairs drives
unsustainable growth and is the root of our debt crisis. This is damaging and
unnecessary, and should be changed.

Amend Policies for a Sustainable Society EC661 in its entirety
with the following motion:

Motion:

The Green Party will
remove the ability of banks to create money and lodge the power and
responsibility of creating new money solely with the state. New money will be
created when necessary by the Bank of England, as determined by the
politically-independent Monetary Policy Committee, and credited to the
Government for use as Parliament sees fit (see EC676). Banks will not be able
to lend money in customer's current accounts, effectively moving to a full
reserve banking system. Customers current account money will be 100% safe, as
opposed to the current fractional reserve banking system where we have to bail
out banks. Banks will be permitted to lend money in savings accounts that they
hold on deposit for a fixed term, but only for the duration of that fixed term
or notice period. The emphasis in monetary policy will be to control and
redirect the creation of money towards socially and environmentally sound
areas of the economy, and away from unsustainable and consumption-driven areas.

Wednesday, 30 May 2012

In these days of royal jubilee celebrations, my mind has
turned towards thinking about republicanism in this country. We did have a de
facto republic in England (and Scotland, Wales and Ireland) for ten years
between 1649 and 1659, after the English Civil War(s) ended, and up until the
Restoration of King Charles II in 1660. His father King Charles I was executed
for high treason by Parliamentary forces in 1649 after years of dispute and
then war with Parliamentary supporters.

These times must have been incredibly exciting politically with
debates going on about the future governance of the country, the most famous of
which were the Putney Debates at St Mary’s Church near Putney bridge in
south west London. A group emerged who became known as The Levellers, with
their support drawn mainly from rank and file soldiers in the Parliamentary
army, although they had support amongst the people, particularly in the City of
London where one of third of the population signed a petition supporting them.

They set out their demands in An Agreement of the People
which espoused a republican and democratic agenda, calling for voting rights for
most men and for Parliament to be elected every two years, for religious
freedom, and for an end to imprisonment for debt. The heads of the army had
other ideas though and wanted the King to approve of some improvements in
social justice. In the end Leveller leaders were arrested and some executed by
the ruling army elite.

One sub sect of the Leveller’s was the Diggers, or True
Levellers, who not only called for an extension in the voting franchise and
extended liberties, but who actually took pre figurative direct action in
setting up collective communities on common land, ploughing the land to grow
crops to share amongst the cooperative, hence the name Diggers. Like all
thinking in those days, it was based upon the Bible, and a Quaker
interpretation of the text.

The Diggers set up a small number of settlements on common
land mainly in southern England, but probably numbered only a couple of
thousand people in total. The most famous settlement was at St George’s Hill in Weybridge in Surrey. It was all pretty radical stuff at the time, but
looking back their demands were typically English and conservative. At the
time, over one third of the country was common land, and gave plenty of
room for their experiment, of the other nearly two thirds of enclosed land,
they were happy to leave with its ‘owners’. They also renounced all violence and
petitioned Parliament to protect their communities.

Parliament didn’t pay much attention to the situation and
local land owners, who must have feared that they wouldn’t be able to attract
workers onto their land to work, used the local courts and armed thugs to evict
the Diggers from their blossoming ecosocialist communities, and there the
experiment ended.

The Restoration of Charles II saw the beginning of the
wholesale enclosure of much of what was left of the common land, as the
establishment could see the threat of allowing people to live communally like
this would undermine their wealth and privilege.

And so it goes on today. I have met people in Tanzania who
farm common land clearings in the forest illegally, and spoken to fishermen in
Senegal, whose families have fished sustainably for centuries and are now
threatened with starvation by factory fishing boats from Europe, Japan and
Russia, over fishing their commons for profits at home and internationally.

So, whilst all this royalist rubbish is going on in the
coming days, let’s instead reflect on our English radical tradition and how
that interconnects with the political challenges we have today.

There is a republican protest by City Hall in London, where
you can jeer the Queen as she sails up the Thames, if you should so wish.
Details here.

Monday, 28 May 2012

Raymondo, member of Kilburn Unemployed Worker’s Group and
Social Work Action Network London, shares with us his Work Capability
Assessment Survival Tips…

The Work Capability
Assessment is the test by which people claiming the out of waged work benefit
Employment and Support Allowance are gauged as qualifying for Employment and
Support Allowance or ‘fit for work’.

Atos Origin are the company profiting from carrying out the
much criticised Work Capability Assessments.

WCA Survival Tips

(Some of these tips
are repetitions or further defining of others. This is to add emphasis.)

1) Never answer a question without
understanding what it means. (ii)

2) Wise up on the ESA eligibility
‘descriptors’. (iii)

3) From the moment you first apply for
Employment & Support Allowance, consider

4) who will be best
suited to accompany you to the ‘medical’ interview and

5) who to approach
for evidence to back your case.

The person to
accompany you will be your McKenzie Friend. (iv)

6) Realise that shame and embarrassment in
relation to your condition may be the biggest barriers to your successful form
completion. In the world of claiming ESA what was previously regarded as a
‘mark of shame’ often becomes a ‘badge of honour’.

7) Picture yourself on a really bad day,
because otherwise the inconsistency of ‘it varies’ answers will too easily be
interpreted as, “This descriptor is insignificant to this claimant’s
eligibility.” Beware also of the inconsistent ordering of some of the answers
in the ESA50, and recognise the relevance of minimum 24 hour working week
realities to what makes your condition worse.

8) Realise that the ESA50 form content sets
the scene for how you will be assessed.

9) Consider the possibility of a relevant
helping professional completing the ESA50 on your behalf, but be the final
arbiter on this. A relevant helping professional’s authoritative input may be
especially helpful if yours is an invisible disability or mental health
condition, but if they take a rushed approach to your form’s completion while
you may be inclined to attempt to avoid embarrassment in stating how bad your
condition really is/can be, their input may well weaken your case.

10) Never attend the Work Capability Assessment
‘medical’ alone. This is something you must factor in when completing the
ESA50.

11) Make optimum use of the ‘lead time’ from
receiving the ESA50 application form to the deadline for form completion and
return, bearing in mind that the ESA50 will be redirected to a different
address than that given on the reply envelope before it reaches the Atos team
who will be conducting your individual assessment.

12) Quote any documented evidence as much as
possible in the body of the form, rather than relying on a covering letter
and/or other attachments that are all too commonly ‘lost in the post’.

13) Keep copies of all your form content and
documentation. Electronic copies of your form content can make editing form
content easier for repeated testing situations.

14) Check out the building accessibility of the
‘Medical Examination Centre’ (MEC), realising that elevator access may not be
operating at the times that the adjoining jobcentre closes. (Some MECs are open
on Sundays, and when jobcentre staff go home at 4:30pm, elevator access may be
denied.)

15) Realise that the ‘suggested route’
details/advice that Atos Healthcare admin issue of how to get from your home to
the MEC may be unnecessarily complicated in order for you to be intimidated out
of attending.

16) Don’t allow yourself to be bullied and
intimidated by the inflexibility of ‘we’re only following orders’ Atos
call-centre staff. In the event of your not being able to attend the MEC as a
consequence of any ‘last-minute emergencies’, say, arising from the weather
denying your McKenzie friend access to a car ride from home to the MEC, realise
that a call to the relevant Disability Benefit Centre can trump such
inflexibility. Remember, without someone to attend the medical, it will be
assumed not only that you have no trouble getting to appointments alone, but
also that you will be a less reliable witness than someone who can corroborate
your version of what happened or did not happen at the medical.

17) Consider the ‘medical’ as more of an
observation activity with you as the one being observed from the time you enter
the waiting room, rather than an exhaustive and thorough medical examination.

18) Seek out, join, or form a support group for
benefit claimants. This will help make your life feel more relevant between
WCAs and help to counter the isolating influences of the reassessment process.

19) Keep abreast of changes to the law as it relates
to your ESA entitlement.

(ii) Dorothy Leeds (1998) Secrets of Successful Interviews.
The fact that the vast majority of ESA claimants who win their tribunals do so
with advocacy support indicates that those without advocacy are not
sufficiently resourced with the relevant information and interpretative
guidance.

(iii) Beyond a Yahoo! Search for “ESA descriptor points”,
you might consider subscribing to the services provided by Benefits & Work
Publishing. A year’s individual person subscription to Benefits & Work
Publishing costs currently less than £20 per year and allows you unlimited
access to their guides written by legal professionals into how the ESA
descriptors might be interpreted.

Friday, 25 May 2012

With the Queen’s diamond Jubilee fast approaching, the UK
media has gone into overdrive with lavish praise of our monarch’s selfless
devotion to duty and public service etc etc. The BBC always goes into a
somewhat comic routine, of reporting any news of the royal family in hushed
tones, as though raising one’s voice to even normal levels of acoustics when
describing Her Majesty and family, is the very height of vulgarity.

The Guardian even
reports on a survey where 69% of Britons say that the country would be worse
off without the monarchy. Of course, depending on what the exact question is
and how it is asked will often get you the answer that you are looking for, with
only 22% of people thinking we would be better off. These results do surprise
me little though, as when the recent royal marriage was taking place between
Prince William and Kate Middleton, there was only the odd isolated union flag
or bunting where I live in north London. It seemed to me that no one was really
very interested in the event, though they were happy to spend the extra bank
holiday in supermarkets, pubs and DIY stores.

Again we have been granted an extra day’s bank holiday, which
when it is combined with the delayed late spring bank holiday and the weekend,
forms a four day block of celebration from 2nd Juneto 5th June. No
doubt people are happy to have an extra day off and will again find ways of
using the time, without taking more than a cursory interest in the Jubilee
itself.

I remember the Queen’s silver Jubilee in 1977, and proudly
displaying my ‘Stuff the Jubilee’ badge, much to the shock of many people I came
into contact with, who mostly labelled me a communist, which I suppose wasn’t
too far from the truth. And who can forget the hit song ‘God Save the Queen’ by
the Sex Pistols from the same year (featured above)? A brilliantly vibrant piss
take of our rather dreary national anthem. The BBC banned the song from being
played on Radio 1, by far the most influential radio station at the time for
selling records, which of course increased its appeal, and it went straight to
number 1.

I must confess, I have obtained a ‘Stuff the Jubilee’ badge
again, but don’t expect wearing it will illicit anything like the opprobrium it
did in 1977. People don’t just seem to identify with the monarchy in the same deep
rooted way they used to. For example, virtually the whole nation would watch
the Queen’s Christmas address in those days, but now what proportion of the
population watches it? Probably less than half, by some way.

I think the present Queen holds some measure of respect
amongst her subjects, mainly because she has been around for so long, and to be
fair, hasn’t done anything majorly embarrassing to the nation, unlike other
members of ‘The Firm’. But surely, this is the least we can expect, from someone
who in return has led a life of luxury at the tax payer’s expense? It would be
an appropriate response to the austerity agenda of the present for the Queen to
have a celebration on the cheap, but oh no, millions of pounds will be wasted
on this event. The authorities are even stealing the Sex Pistols idea, and
sailing the monarch up and down the Thames on a boat.

So, will we have a republic anytime soon? Well, not until
Queen Elizabeth’s reign is over to be sure. The same Guardian survey mentioned
above though, does indicate that her likely successor Prince Charles has
nothing like as much support as his mother amongst the public. Given his
meddling in politics and lobbying of ministers, which we are not allowed to see
the full details of, since the royal household is exempted from the provisions
of the Freedom of Information Act, he may become even more unpopular. Unfortunately,
that window may not be open for very long, as the Queen looks to have a good
few years left in her yet, and the crown may pass quite quickly on to the next generation,
and so conjure up the people’s ambivalence once again.

If only Cromwell hadn’t fucked it up, banning dancing and
all that, we may now never be rid of them.

Wednesday, 23 May 2012

Written by Nicky Clarke. A longer version of this article on Nicky's blog here
First Published at Liberal Conspiracy

A blind, deaf, tube-fed, non verbal, disabled man from Scotland has been deemed fit for work by the DWP. As a result of not completing the form correctly, his benefits will be stopped on 7th June and he will have to access the appeal process to have this decision over-turned.

This man has to have 24 hour care and the person who had completed his form for him as his disability prevents him had not included something in the 30 page form which meant that due to that error his money will stop.
These forms are very lengthy, complicated and ask many intimate and intrusive questions very much like the Disability benefit forms I complete on behalf of my children.

The problem isn’t the fact that you have to ask for help; it isn’t the time it takes to complete them; it isn’t the caring that you have to do at the same time; it isn’t the humiliation that you feel as you complete them; it isn’t the shame culture which has grown up in recent years around those legitimately asking for help.

It isn’t the fear of hate crime which vulnerable people face; it isn’t the lack of disability access which greet many disabled people called to an assessment with untrained staff; it isn’t the tabloid press who brand genuinely disabled people as “scroungers” and “scum”.
It isn’t any one of those things. It’s all of them.

The mistake regarding his forms will take weeks to rectify. And if you still feel this is a justifiable process in order to weed out the liars and fakes living in mansions and driving luxury cars, I ask you to think again. More money is lost in DWP error than is lost through benefits granted to liars and fakes.

The fact that you feel this is a justification at all simply means that you have been desensitised by effective propaganda because disabled people are the new scapegoats de jour.

My thoughts are with those without a support network, those who are killing themselves because they have lost, or fear losing their benefits.

Monday, 21 May 2012

The Independent on Sundayreports on a ComRes opinion
poll which indicates potential support for small parties in Britain is on the
rise. Although the report highlights the possible rise in support for the
United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and a rise in Euroscepticism amongst
the British public, with the resultant difficulties this could cause David
Cameron and the Conservative party, it also looks just as favourable to other
small parties.

One third of people who voted Conservative at the last general
election now say they have now switched or are ready to switch to voting UKIP.
With the current problems in the Eurozone, it is no great surprise that
Euroscepticism is gaining ground and so too UKIP with its xenophobic stance on
all things European. Indeed, I think UKIP would have won at least one seat on
the London Assembly had they not for some reason changed their name on the
ballot paper to ‘First Choice for London’.

But the report goes on to say:

‘The ComRes/IoS poll
reveals deep dissatisfaction with the mainstream parties, with 37 per cent of
their supporters seriously considering switching to smaller parties. Among all
voters polled, 13 per cent are pondering backing Ukip, with the same proportion
poised to vote Green. Four per cent are considering supporting the BNP, and 3
per cent could vote for George Galloway's Respect party. Only 38 per cent are
not considering changing their allegiance.’

‘Among Labour voters,
the disaffected are most likely to be looking to the Green Party (19 per cent),
Ukip (11 per cent) or the Lib Dems (10 per cent). Of Lib Dem supporters, 28 per
cent are considering switching to the Greens, 27 per cent to the Conservatives,
21 per cent to Labour and 14 per cent to Ukip.’

All of which means that for the Green party there is a quite
large pool of potential voters, who are clearly not all that impressed with the
big parties, and could well switch to us if we can show that we are a credible
alternative. The British electoral landscape has never been so open as this
poll indicates. Although Labour did well in the recent London Assembly
elections, this poll shows that their support is far from rock solid and voters
on the left are thinking about choosing the Green party to represent their
views.

The Green party needs to win more seats at all levels of government
to cement this position, but also, just as UKIP puts pressure on the
Conservatives to be more right wing, the Green party can do the same job on the
Labour party, although obviously pulling them to the left in our case.

This drop in support for the main established
parties is echoed all across Europe with pro austerity parties paying the price
for the failed laissez faire economic policies that have brought us to this
sorry pass. People seem more open to listen to an alternative now, than at any
time in the last thirty years, which presents the Green party with a unique
opportunity to advance.

Wednesday, 16 May 2012

The detailed ward by ward data has now been released by London Elects for the GLA elections on 3rd May. I reported on this blog
here previously that the Green party finished in third place in Enfield
and Haringey (London Member list) pushing the Lib Dems in to fourth place. This
more detailed data shows the full scale of the collapse of the Lib Dem vote in
Haringey, and it is truly staggering.

The share of the vote for the main parties in Haringey was
as follows:

Conservative 16.0%

Green 13.4%

Labour 53.0%

Lib Dem 10.4%

On these results the Lib Dems would lose all of their 22
seats on Haringey council, and Lynne Featherstone, MP for Hornsey and Wood
Green, would also lose her seat. Labour beat the Lib Dems comfortably in every
ward in Haringey. Indeed, of the 19 wards in Haringey, the Green party beat the
Lib Dems in all but one ward (come on Muswell Hill ward, you don’t want to get
a reputation for this sort of thing!).

Let’s take just one ward as an example of the catastrophe
that has just hit the Lib Dems in Haringey (and across London generally). This
is the result of the London Member ballot from the Haringey ward of Stroud
Green:

Conservative 10.4%

Greens 22.2%

Labour 47.5%

Lib Dem 13.9%

This ward currently has three Lib Dem councillors, including
the leader of the Lib Dem group, Richard Wilson, who are all clearly in peril
at the next council elections in 2014.

Of course, people do vote differently in different
elections, and there are two years to go until the London council elections,
and probably three to the general election, but the Lib Dems must be very
worried by these results.

It was entirely predictable that this sort of thing would
happen from the day the Lib Dems nationally decided to enter a coalition
government with the Tories. Much of Lib Dem support in London came from disaffected
Labour voters in recent years, and they are horrified that by voting Lib Dem,
it has led to a Tory government, following a right wing, pander to rich and
stuff everyone else, agenda.

The Lib Dems could well return to their numbers of elected
representatives that they had in the 1970’s, when you had to be some sort of
celebrity like Cyril Smith or Clement Freud, to get elected as a Liberal MP. They
can only hope that something turns up to change their fortunes, but as it
stands, they are on death row in Haringey and much of the rest of the country.

Tuesday, 15 May 2012

In September, I will reach the end of my second term as the first national leader of the Green party of England and Wales – and I've decided not to seek re-election for another two-year term.
When I first joined the party back in 1986, it was a core article of faith for many members that we should not have a conventional leader in the traditional mould. It's true that formal leadership carries risks.

Presenting one image as the "face" of a party can attract some people, but put off others. At a deeper level, if leadership is about concentrating power in the hands of a single person or an inner circle, it is damaging to the cause and can lead to poor decision-making.

But leadership is also a powerful tool that can draw people in and inspire them. Trying to sell abstract ideas to the public rarely works. People want to see the human face of an organisation, to help them understand what it is there for and to judge if they trust it. So when the decision was finally made in 2007 to establish the roles of leader and deputy leader of the Green party, it wasn't about sacrificing a principle to gain some votes. It was about changing the way we worked to help communicate our passion and principles in a more effective way. It is an example of how we found the right balance between principles and pragmatism, and how the party had become more self-confident.

It was always my view that leadership, for the Greens, did not have to be about seizing power and holding on to it at all costs. Leaders must have confidence in their abilities as well as their cause. But to ensure that every individual in the movement feels a personal responsibility, they should also be eager to share out the responsibilities of leadership with others, from shaping policy to maintaining morale. In other Green parties around the world, leaders have often been the first to recognise that the time has come for others to take up that responsibility; a healthy contrast to seeing traditional politicians clawing at their desks in a vain attempt to hang on to power.

I am hugely honoured to have served my party in this role, and proud that during the four years of my term, we've moved Green politics forward to a higher level, with the party by far the most influential it has ever been. We have seen significant breakthroughs, not only in Brighton & Hove, winning our first seat at Westminster and our first ever local council, but also nationally, with further breakthroughs on to new councils in the recent local elections, as well as establishing ourselves as the third party, ahead of the Liberal Democrats, in the elections for London mayor and the London Assembly.

Green politics has shifted from the margins to the mainstream of British political life. As the party grows, buoyed by a new generation of activists and underpinned by the achievements of our outstanding elected members, now is the time to make space for other talented Greens to come through and take us even further forward. For me, this decision is about staying true to green principles. We're lucky to have a wealth of capability and experience in our ranks, and taking a strategic approach to leadership is a natural step in maturing as a party and nurturing future electoral aspirations. I'm confident that the next leader, whoever they may be, will be able to build on our momentum.

Now I look forward to channelling even more of my energy into representing the people of Brighton Pavilion, speaking out in parliament on behalf of my constituents and doing all I can to defend them against the coalition government's disastrous economic policies. I will continue to be a lead advocate for the party, and will hold the government to account on its environmental and social responsibilities.

The Greens have a clear vision of how we must now move away from our broken economic system – which for too long has kept us dangerously dependent on the bankers' gambles, toxic debt and on the plundering of natural resources – and towards a fairer, more sustainable economy. People are increasingly recognising that we are a credible alternative to the three main Westminster parties, and as communities up and down the country feel the consequences of savage yet self-defeating austerity – paying the price for a crisis they did not create – that Green alternative has never been more necessary.

Monday, 14 May 2012

The graph above illustrates the spread of seats in the Greek
Parliament following the recent general election in the country. Leaders of the
three largest parties, New Democracy, SYRIZA and PASOK have all in turn been
asked by the Greek President, Karolos Papoulias to try to form a coalition
government, but to no avail. In a last ditch attempt by the President to form a
government, he has now approached the leader of the Democratic Left party for
his support. It looks unlikely that the Democratic Left will join any coalition
that does not include Syriza, and fresh elections in June now look to be
inevitable.

New Democracy with PASOK failed only narrowly to reach the
151 seats needed for a majority in the Greek Parliament, but this was largely
down to the idiosyncrasies of the Greek electoral system, whereby the largest
party after the election are rewarded with a 50 seat ‘bonus’. In reality New
Democracy and PASOK, the two coalition partners who are responsible for
accepting European Union (EU) austerity policies, only garnered about 30% of
the vote, with the rest going to anti-austerity parties.

The electoral impasse is caused by SYRIZA not agreeing to be
part of a government that is committed to the ‘Memorandum’ deal on austerity
policies for Greece with the EU. This is a perfectly reasonable stance from a
party that stood in the election as against the austerity measures and opinion
polls suggest that their popularity is increasing, with three polls showing
they are likely to be the largest party after a new election, with support
perhaps as high as 27%.

SYRIZA is a coalition of left wing radicals and greens, covering
some fifteen different political parties and groupings and has clearly been the
main beneficiary of anti-austerity sentiment in Greece. An ecosocialist source
inside SYRIZA, Tasos Pantazidis, predicts that after new elections SYRIZA will
be able to form a government with other left forces, including the KKE
(Stalinist Communist Party) who have resisted all talk of coalition so far. Other
smaller parties that did not gain the required 3% of the vote to qualify for
seats in Parliament, such as the Greens, ANTARSYA and the PASOK breakaway
Social Agreement party may also be brought into the SYRIZA coalition. The
opinion polls indicate that their voters are voting with their feet anyway and
throwing their lot in with SYRIZA.

SYRIZA say that they want to remain in the Euro (opinion
polls show something like 70% of Greeks want to remain inside the Euro), which
is the popular view, and to renegotiate the bail-out deal with the EU and IMF.
This is a game of high brinkmanship, where SYRIZA are gambling that the EU will
be more worried about the effect on the Euro itself caused by a Greek default,
than offering Greece a better deal. SYRIZA would be wise to have a plan B,
because it looks as though Greece will need to leave the single currency, to
begin to sort out their problems in the medium term.

Of course all of this electoral uncertainty has led to a
fall in the value of the Euro, and the political earthquake it has unleashed in
Greece has sent shock waves all through Europe, coinciding with the election of
Socialist party candidate Francois Hollande to the French presidency on a
largely anti-austerity platform, if it is somewhat vague about actual detail.

But what seems to be clear is that for the first time in 30
odd years the neo liberal political/economic consensus is being challenged in
Europe which is likely to have an effect on attitudes in the UK, where
austerity policies have been promoted with some relish by the right wing coalition
government of Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. The Labour party, as
is its want these days, has suggested only an ‘austerity light’ approach to the
UK’s debt problems, with only the Greens and far left parties opposed to
austerity full stop. Labour may now feel they have more cover for a more
radical stance, with events in Greece and France (and to a lesser extent Spain
and Italy) moving the debate from a dogmatic no alternative to austerity
policies to a more expansive strategy for economic growth.

The shock waves have even reached Germany, where the ruling
Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have suffered big losses in regional elections
in the country’s largest region, North Rhine Westphalia. The CDU vote fell by 9%
with the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and the Green party expected to form a
new coalition government in the region.

Are we about to see a new epoch emerge in European politics,
where the crazy casino capitalism of recent times is thrown into the rubbish
bin of history? I do hope so, but let’s not get carried away just yet, there is
long way to go, but at least now there is chink of light at the end of this
long dark tunnel.

Saturday, 5 May 2012

Jenny Jones, the Green party candidate for mayor of London,
finished third in the ballot, beating the Lib Dem candidate, Brian Paddick into
fourth place. The result of the first preference vote was as follows:

Boris Johnson CON 971,931 44.01%

Ken Livingstone LAB 889,918 40.30%

Jenny Jones GRN 98,913 4.48%

Brian Paddick LD 91,774 4.16%

Siobhan Benita IND 83,914 3.80%

Lawrence Webb UKIP 43,274 1.96%

Carlos Cortiglia BNP 28,751 1.30%

After second preference votes were counted, Boris Johnson,
the Conservative party candidate was confirmed as mayor of London, winning by
3% points.

The Greens also finished as the third party on the London
Assembly, again beating the Lib Dems into fourth place. And the same was true
in the local constituency of Enfield and Haringey, where the Green party
candidate Peter Krakowiak who gained 8.5% against the Lib Dems 9.4%, but in the
London wide Member ballot we beat the Lib Dems 9.4% to us and 6.8% to them.

In the London wide additional member ballot the Greens
achieved 8.5% of the vote across Greater London, with the Lib Dems managing
only 6.79%.

As more detailed information becomes available, more
analysis will be published on this blog, but for now it is clear that the Lib
Dems have taken a battering in London and the rest of the country. This was
predictable, since many people who voted for them at the last General Election
are aghast that that has led to the Lib Dems propping up an uncaring Tory
government, hell bent on wrecking the welfare state.

Labour overall have had a good election,
although they failed to retake the London mayoralty, and there does appear to
be a reluctance amongst some of the voters to back Labour, which leaves a gap
for the Green party to exploit. With the Lib Dems discredited and unpopular,
voters may turn to the Greens now in London, if they are unwilling to support
either of the big parties.